Remember RIAA Promising Legal Cease-Fire?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

They lied!

RIAA Still Suing File-Sharers?

Serves defendant with notice of complaint for copyright infringement 8 days after it swore it had quit targeting individual file-sharers.


It was December 18th of last year that the RIAA declared "peace in our time," that it had decided to end the highly controversial strategy of suing individuals for illegal file-sharing and that it instead wants ISPs to adopt a three-strikes policy for copyright infringement accusations.



Ray Beckerman of Recording Industry vs the People has now posted a copy of a summons and complaint served on a defendant by the RIAA on December 26, 2008, some 8 days after its announcement that it was ending its campaign of targeting individual file-sharers in a Massachusetts case, UMG Recordings v. Briggs.


So the real question is, is the RIAA still going to sue people for illegal file-sharing? It says it has quit, but the proof that it hasn't is clearly posted for all to see.


So much for RIAA Pres Cary Sherman's declaration that it had switched strategies. Perhaps the RIAA is beginning to have a change of heart considering that all the major ISPs have denied any plans to assist copyright holders by terminating the accounts of those repeatedly accused of copyright infringement.
READ THE RIAA'S COMPLAINT

[Bilbo]

What is the big deal? The actions being taken are completely legal. The people doing the filesharing are breaking the law. There seems to be this hysteria out there that "how dare the record industry protect their intellectual property".

[Mr Bean]

What is the big deal? The actions being taken are completely legal. The people doing the filesharing are breaking the law. There seems to be this hysteria out there that "how dare the record industry protect their intellectual property".

Bilbo Let me be as kind as possible.

The RIAA is running for all intents and purposes a racket. They have sued the following

1. Minors
2. Dead people (Suing the kids)
3. People who they have no evidence for
4. People with similar names to people they suspect.

There have been cases when the RIAA brought suits against people who don't even own computers, because their method of evidence gathering is the electronic equivalent of breaking an entering. An example was a woman sued because the previous occupant of her apartment had been doing file sharing. She moved into the apartment six months after the other person left by the time the lawsuits were draw up she was the person living their and the person served with the lawsuit. Second as it turned out the previous occupant had been using an Comcast provided unsecured route which broadcasts Wi-fi access in the clear(A well know Comcast problem at the time was their default install method left wireless networking on and with no password, anyone with a wireless card could connect) which made it impossible to prove said person was even the one filesharing as it could have been anyone.

This is not the occasional, this is the norm. The RIAA drags a wide net and does not even bother trying to prove anything, the RIAA's only goal is to intimidate the public because all they are looking to do is tie up citizins in court, and in court even if you are totally innocent and the RIAA has no evidence whatever you can STILL end up paying thousands of dollars in court fees.

That Bilbo is the issue. The RIAA has had dozens of lawsuits dismissed for lack of evidence, but keeps right on filing them. They stopped filing them only because they were getting harsher and harsher pushback and because class action lawsuits started forming from people falsely accused by the RIAA, and there's nothing lawyers love more than to sign on to such a case because they can make ALOT of money from it.

[Eleas]

What is the big deal? The actions being taken are completely legal. The people doing the filesharing are breaking the law. There seems to be this hysteria out there that "how dare the record industry protect their intellectual property".

Indeed, that's exactly why the RIAA are so reviled. Not because they're routinely crack down on people with frivolous lawsuits. Not because they use intimidation tactics against customer and artist alike. Not because their methods are geared to lock down the market and cartellize. Not because they refuse to create content, but instead make their money by parasitizing upon artists and getting the lions' share thereof. No, it's because they're being badmouthed by heathens who have not yet seen the light of RIIA.

...but of course, you're absolutely correct. They're just "protecting" their "intellectual property." Since by the fucked-up standards of your country corporations are granted absurd amounts of leniency and legal protection not afforded to... well... anyone else, according to you there should be no hard feelings.

[Bilbo]

So if the RIAA starting taking people to court but instead of casting a wide net it instead targetted legitimate people it had a complaint against then your opposition would end?

The article posted mentions only a single case filed in court and says nothing at all that this is a spurious charge for intimidation. Also the article mentions that their replacement plan of working with ISPs is a failure because not a single ISP is willing to work with the RIAA. If the ISPs wont work with the RIAA then how are they supposed to protect intellectual property rights?

[Thanas]

^Now why do you think ISPs will not cooperate with the RIAA (anymore)?

[Mr Bean]

So if the RIAA starting taking people to court but instead of casting a wide net it instead targetted legitimate people it had a complaint against then your opposition would end?

Nope I'd still have a complaint because the RIAA when it does find people who fileshare do crazy things like demand 756$ dollars a song shared. Or in Jammie Thompsons case nine thousand two hundred and fifty dollars a song.

The article posted mentions only a single case filed in court and says nothing at all that this is a spurious charge for intimidation.

Why would the piece mention the other 17,587 lawsuits the RIAA has filed? Does it have time to mention all of the over ten thousand lawsuits the RIAA has filed? Does it have time for the what? Lets say one sentence... a case that would be a four thousand plus paragraph piece. No just because it's a report on the RIAA does not mean they need to mention everything else the RIAA is doing right now. It's a news story on the RIAA about the fact that they kept sueing people after they said they would stop, and their explanation was "We will stop suing people except for the people we were already planning to sue".

Also the article mentions that their replacement plan of working with ISPs is a failure because not a single ISP is willing to work with the RIAA. If the ISPs wont work with the RIAA then how are they supposed to protect intellectual property rights?

Do you know what the RIAA is even suing these people for?
It's called the Making Available theory. The theory states, that if you put copyrighted music/video in a space where it could be access and freely copied, then you are guilty of intellectual property theft.

Think about that for a minute, in essence what they say is that if you were to leave copyright protected items in an area where they could be copied, then you are guilty of violating their rights even if they never prove anyone copied it. Which means in essence it should be a federal crime to leave something like a Xerox copier inside a liberary because "GASP!" someone could copy the books!

Seriously, as has been pointed out before, you can copy one song, a million times, in under a minute. Intellectual property rights for something like digital music is very hard to gauge since if I take the latest top 10$ song and upload it on the internet it could be access by all one point four billion people who access the internet. And using something like bittorrent they could all download it in under a week.

Now how many counts of copyright infringement are you going to charge me with?

[Bilbo]

The article posted mentions only a single case filed in court and says nothing at all that this is a spurious charge for intimidation.

Why would the piece mention the other 17,587 lawsuits the RIAA has filed? Does it have time to mention all of the over ten thousand lawsuits the RIAA has filed? Does it have time for the what? Lets say one sentence... a case that would be a four thousand plus paragraph piece. No just because it's a report on the RIAA does not mean they need to mention everything else the RIAA is doing right now. It's a news story on the RIAA about the fact that they kept sueing people after they said they would stop, and their explanation was "We will stop suing people except for the people we were already planning to sue".

So are you saying that the RIAA has filed 17,587 cases since it said it would stop? Or is that its previous case load and it has only filed a single case since then?

[Mr Bean]

So are you saying that the RIAA has filed 17,587 cases since it said it would stop? Or is that its previous case load and it has only filed a single case since then?

No... try reading it again.
They have filed a total of 17,587 cases to date. And they have an unknown number of cases left. They said they would stop filing lawsuits but after they said that, they filed another lawsuit and changed their statement to say "No more lawsuits, except the people we are still going to sue".


And one note
UPDATE
Not 17k, but 30k
I noticed my news source for the number of lawsuits was over two years old. I re-searched it to find that the total number is 30493 lawsuits.

OAN.
How many Bilbo, how many charges of copyright infringement, don't dodge the question.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Bilbo, here's the short, ugly truth about the RIAA: They are Terrorists. They use subpoenas and excessive fines instead of guns and bombs, but the effect is exactly the same: Frighten and cow the populace into buying overpriced plastic disks with the threat of indiscriminate financial warfare.

[SirNitram]

Ah, Making Availiable. Ballsy, considering that's been publically shit upon by a court. For those wondering on the case, it was Atlantic Recording vs. Brennan.

In 2004, the RIAA's multiple John Does-in-one-filing was ordered halted by a court in Austin. It continued on anyway.

They have filed, as noted, 30k lawsuits. When challenged they almost invariably back off. Small wonder; their one and only trial was in Capitol vs. Thomas, and it's entire settlement was set aside by the judge after consideration of Making Availiable and Offer To Distribute. Said judge went on to say, bluntly, that applying the standards and damages from corporate espionage and illegal acts to individuals pirating for their own enjoyment was baseless and ridiculous.

So... Why shouldn't we mock the RIAA?

[Eleas]

So... Why shouldn't we mock the RIAA?

Because apparently, corporate profiteering is some sort of moral imperative.

[Big Orange]

The RIAA's civil liberties violations with the bullying of consumers is just ignorant myopia and appalling business sense, they're just given themselves more rope to hang themselves since they can't cope with being plodding dinosaurs in the shiny new digital landscape. Copyright is OK for consolidation for the author and quality control, but not whan it is actively counterproductive like this.

[SirNitram]

So if the RIAA starting taking people to court but instead of casting a wide net it instead targetted legitimate people it had a complaint against then your opposition would end?

Nope I'd still have a complaint because the RIAA when it does find people who fileshare do crazy things like demand 756$ dollars a song shared. Or in Jammie Thompsons case nine thousand two hundred and fifty dollars a song.

'Download equals lost sale' thrown out in USA v. Dove. Restitution was flatly denied because of the faultiness of this theory, which uses those insane figures when it's not even been shown a download equals a lost purchase of, you know, sane, market price.

Now, if anyone would like to see the RIAA in court against actual intelligent peope who know law, the proceedings of Sony BMG vs. Tenebaum will be televised over the web and made availiable for viewing. Tenebaum is accused of downloading seven songs, and is being sued for one million dollars. A law professor has moved to represent him to stop the RIAA insanity.

And naturally, the RIAA was camera-shy. Enough that the judge's opinion on the televising mentioned it.

While the Plaintiffs object to the narrowcasting of this proceeding, .... their objections are curious. At previous hearings and status conferences, the Plaintiffs have represented that they initiated these lawsuits not because they believe they will identify every person illegally downloading copyrighted material. Rather, they believe that the lawsuits will deter the Defendants and the wider public from engaging in illegal file-sharing activities. Their strategy effectively relies on the publicity resulting from this litigation.

[Zixinus]

I can see why they hate them. Their tactics are completely ineffectual for what they actually want to archive, but they think that simply bullying people will work. It's truly pathetic.

[Kanastrous]

Frighten and cow the populace into buying overpriced plastic disks with the threat of indiscriminate financial warfare.

And frighten and cow the populace into downloading songs for .99 a pop, with the threat of indiscriminate financial warfare.

[Duckie]

One I don't think I saw mentioned- RIAA has sued a single mother who doesn't own a computer for filesharing, and won. She paid several thousand in settlements to avoid losing even more money in court fees, since it isn't Loser Pays in America.

[TempestSong]

It should also be mentioned that the RIAA has tried to force universities into installing special "tracking" software in their servers, to monitor connections and see who in the networks were doing illegal sharing. It didn't work well of course, so they abandoned that venture. A university willing to share their extremely private information with a known-corrupt media corporate giant...must've been the ballsiest move the RIAA made in this whole shitfest.

[Zixinus]

Hypothetically: what tactic would actually work to reduce file-sharing?

[Korto]

Hypothetically: what tactic would actually work to reduce file-sharing?

I would think individual song download at a cheap and reasonable price would reduce it, as you no longer get those downloading as they're morally offended by an exorbitant price.
What they really need is a new business model (yes, and the sky is blue). The songs being a lure (possibly given away free) to create fans who will buy T-shirts, coffee mugs, and other crap.

[Sarevok]

Hypothetically: what tactic would actually work to reduce file-sharing?

Nothing. It is like stopping people from swearing.

[Mr Bean]

Hypothetically: what tactic would actually work to reduce file-sharing?

Nothing. It is like stopping people from swearing.

Bloody board ate my post.

OK here's the short version
Remember that there is lots of legal file sharing to go along with the illegal, so simply reducing file sharing won't work. Most likely you will simply eliminate all the legal and leave only the illegal(See Universities who throttle bit-torrent and the like)

Now then there are four main reasons for file sharing. Lead Times(DVD's), Bundling(CD's), Price(All), and DRM.

Lead times is easy. If you see a movie in the theater and want to watch it again at home, you must wait six months to a year for the DVD. As anyone who's lived in any major city knows. Bootlegs will be produced and available for purchase within one week of the movies release. And worse, you will find within two weeks you will find a high quality ripped right from the reel online download. So now the only reason to wait is for DVD extra's. As many people know, 90% of those are shit. So there's a major reason right there.

Solution:Offer a streaming version of the movie within a month of it hitting theaters through some kind of subscription service. Do not charge eight bucks a view. Think Four.

Bundling, in the old days the only way to get the song you liked from a band was to buy the whole tape/CD for 15$-20$ Either that or fork over 5$ for just the one song on a single's CD/Tape. Thanks to Itunes that's no longer the case. But Itunes leads us into reason three and four.

Price, Buying a new CD costs on average 17$. Cost to make, package and distribute that CD is right around a dollar. They are sold to stores for around 5$-10$ in bulk and the stores mark them up more. Something like Itunes is far cheaper to run over the long run. All you need are guys to run the website, watch the download servers, update the software and a few guys to get more music for your catalog. To pay their salaries and bandwidth costs, you need lets say twenty thousand songs a month sold. Well Itunes is doing a bit better than that. They sold in 2007 for example FOUR BILLION SONGS. Which after taxes and artist cuts, translates that into right around two billion in profit. Not bad, not bad at all. However a dollar a song sounds nice but not every song is worth a dollar. Itunes is on the way to changing this with variable pricing however they went the wrong way. .69, .99 and 1.99 don't work because your going to see a ton of .99 music jump to 1.99 for no damn good reason, and only the pure garbage go to .69. A better system would have been to keep the .99 price point and simply allow fifty cent and dime songs. The dime songs of course being for bands wanting exposure. Something even the .69 cent price point won't do. But a dime, or even a quarter would. Itunes is notoriously indy band unfriendly. These are bands that give their music away they want exposure that bad, but it's not easy to simply sign up and get your name into the Itunes store.

*Edit
Also Itunes does not offer HQ downloads for Audiophiles. I have a friend who gets all his music from the internet because he is obsessed and he won't stand for 128k MP3's. He wants either the raw music or much higher quality compressions than standard mp3. You can't get those anywhere except from soundboard rips. It's a tiny market but the only way to get HQ music is normally illegaly.


Lastly DRM
We all know and love DRM. Fun fact, there are people who download mp3's off the internet for music they already own. Why? No DRM. DRM as has been demonstrated over and over and godamn over only impacts lawful legal customers. The illegal side of the trade eats DRM schemes for breakfast and no DRM standard (Not even the so called "hacker-resistant") ones last more than a month before a crack is produced and widely spread. Companies spend millions trying and in one case something that took two years to code was broken in six days.

You can not stop that side, people will crack your DRM for shits and giggles, to prove how good they are, or simply because doing it gives them happiness like solving a well crafted puzzle.

Who does DRM actually affect? Your paying customers, the ones who wonder why their music won't pay in their computer's CD player or in some newer car stereo CD players. Nothing says fun like buying a product you can't use because of the DRM.

[Bilbo]

So if the RIAA had never done the blanket legal assaults but had been careful and only gone after people who had intentionally made copies of copyrighted material and posted them online for free download by others would there be the same vile hatred here that I see now?

I am wondering how much effort a company is allowed to expend protecting their intellectual property before someone (basically a thief) says it is wrong and immoral.

[Bilbo]

I would think individual song download at a cheap and reasonable price would reduce it, as you no longer get those downloading as they're morally offended by an exorbitant price.
What they really need is a new business model (yes, and the sky is blue). The songs being a lure (possibly given away free) to create fans who will buy T-shirts, coffee mugs, and other crap.

You are joking right? You do realise that as a business the recording industry has every right to charge whatever they want for their product. Lots of poeple here seem to think music is some "right" of theirs and its immoral to charge more than "they" think is fair. Folks music is not food. You will not starve and die if you do not get to buy your music.

[Rogue 9]

The RIAA is entirely immoral because it is a ruthless business monopoly. Frivolous lawsuits for ridiculous sums are simply icing on the cake. "Their" intellectual property is only theirs at all because they strongarm musicians into signing over all their rights simply to be distributed. And bands that don't? Well, good fucking luck getting your music sold in any meaningful fashion. And in the meantime, the RIAA will generously collect royalty fees on your music for you, and then refuse to turn over the proceeds unless you join the RIAA (and pay them a fee!). Fuck them, fuck their business model, and bust them up under RICO already.